Stereophile review of the new Wilson Watt/Puppy


I received my copy of the latest Stereophile yesterday and was curious to see what Martin Collums had to say about them, even though I would take it with a grain of salt, knowing that he had owned them in the past. He's still one of the reviewers that I consider to be most technically informed and balanced in his reviews.

I'm starting this thread because I want to know if others found his conclusions as confusing as I did. He says that the speakers have deep powerful bass, great detail, wonderful dynamic range, and are able to play very loud without breakup. 

However, after all of that, he concludes that they are better for jazz and orchestral and perhaps a bit reticent for pop and rock. This made no sense to me, especially for a $40.000 speaker. I am curious about the opinions of anyone else who has read the review. 

roxy54

Congrats.  Is the dealer fling in to set them up?  It took 3 people over 4 hours for unpacking and initial placement and they will be coming back after a few hundred hours for final setup.  All in all an excellent experience.

 

@ckr1969 

Then it must have been a poor setup. As a former WATTS/Puppy owner for decades, the last thing they lack - even though this WATT is a newer one - was "realism." BUT, I found them more realistic with tubes, which was annoying due to that 1.7 impedance dip. Still, tubes made the eyes bulge - even back in 1987. And i attend symphonies monthly, so "realism" is something I’m acquainted with.

I find so many people (not necessarily pointing to you, ckr) don’t realize that a setup at a dealer’s isn’t necessarily all that good. I heard my Antique Sound Lab Hurricanes at Lyric Hi Fi in 2003. And they sounded lifeless. NO dynamic range, NO midbass. No nothing, really. And, as i recall, the other components were a Lector 7tl cd player, Dynaudio speakers and a tubed amp (forget which one). If I hadn’t trusted that Harry’s gushing review of the amps was not a mistake, I might never have bought them. I got them instead from another dealer - without listening. The amps were dazzling right out of the crates. Lyric’s setup was just flat our poor. I suspect they didn’t care, because I’ve never heard a demo that bad. They clearly did not listen to it after they set it up, because that demo - they left me in the room alone - was truly the worst I can remember hearing. But that is not all that rare. I’ve heard some pretty mediocre setups  in dealer's rooms since 1984, and given the price tags, that was not a vote of confidence for whatever dealer I was visiting.

So many stories of "heard this, not impressed" don’t ever seem to register with the listener that maybe its the setup. The likelihood of a WATT - even the 1986 version - sounding less than thrilling, just tells me the setup was off in some way. 

I hew toward Skinzy’s comment. Once a component is changed in a system, unless one is COMPLETELY FAMILIAR with the replaced component, the conclusion one had before the change goes out the window. Unfamiliarity with anything in the system - and I do mean anything - can change the tonal balance, dynamics and everything else. i have found it intensely annoying how many mediocre setups I’ve heard in dealers’ showrooms. And this was back in the ’80s and ’90s. I can completely  understand why some people think some of this hobby is ’snake oil.’ It’s not in most cases, but I get why people shout it so loudly. Of course, there are far fewer mortar and brick establishments - with knowledgeable (about music) salespeople, so what people hear is often not scaling the heights of musical awesomeness. What a shame.